Football News
A bit 'blah' or a worthy host? Is MetLife right World Cup final choice?
17 CommentsAs the World Cup final approaches, this tournament will long be remembered for its drama and some classic matches.Just as important for the fans at the games has been their experience inside the venues.They have stepped into football history at Mexico's Azteca Stadium. They have seen the luxurious design of the Sofi stadium outside Los Angeles. The have experienced the state-of-the-art retractable roof and climate control of the AT&T stadium outside of Dallas.But there has been one venue that has generated sustained scrutiny, and it happens to be staging the big finale - the NY-NJ Stadium, or the MetLife Stadium outside New York.The criticism includes everything from its design and transportation to the quality of the pitch.So was it the right choice for Sunday's final between Spain and Argentina?Previous imageNext imageSlide 1 of 3, A picture from pitch level inside an empty Metlife Stadium, Inside the empty MetLife StadiumEnd of image galleryMuch maligned since 2010 opening - but it is in New YorkAsk locals and they will confirm that the stadium has long had a poor reputation."For lack of a better word, the technical term for MetLife Stadium is 'blah'," says long-time New Jersey sports columnist Steve Politi. One of his readers once compared its appearance to a giant prison toilet, another to a big air conditioner.The stadium is home to two American football franchises, the New York Giants and the New Jersey Jets - and Politi explains that, by design, the stadium had to fit a lot of different people's wants and needs.He said the result was a soulless, large empty building that, for many fans, did not quite live up to its $1.6bn price tag.Opened in 2010, the stadium has a modern metallic louvered exterior, with programmable lighting that can glow in any colour. It is one of the largest stadiums used in the NFL, and adjustments can be made for concerts and other events, with an open-air bowl that fits 82,500 spectators and 200 luxury suites across four levels. It has hosted everything from a Super Bowl and Wrestlemania to Paul McCartney and Beyonce concerts.The multi-purpose venue is five miles west of Manhattan on a former swamp surrounded by highways, a 750-acre area known as the Meadowlands Sports Complex in East Rutherford, New Jersey.The area is generally difficult to navigate without a car, and even then it is very congested.Fans who took rideshares had to navigate winding lanes of traffic and closed roadways to find their way to the correct drop-off zone.Those who took shuttles, or the 20,000 people who took the train, had an easier experience. Although they were frustrated by the high price - $98 a ticket for NJTransit tickets - and having to wait in large crowds to board the trains, most were pleased with the efficient commute itself."There was a little bit of a delay to get in, but it was OK," says 56-year-old Jason Bentham, who travelled over from Manchester. His main complaint about his experience, though, was the high cost of beers at the stadium. Of the three venues he visited - he also went to Boston - his favourite was Atlanta, which is air conditioned, unlike MetLife Stadium."The stadium [in Atlanta] was amazing," he says. "It was scorching hot when I was outside so when we got inside it had the roof on and it was all air conditioned, unbelievable stadium... and the beers were not as expensive."Still, the city he enjoyed the most overall, hands down, was New York, where he also watched the darts competition at Madison Square Garden and enjoyed the atmosphere and bars of the city.To Fifa, that is the appeal of MetLife Stadium - its access to the largest media market."What Fifa was looking for was having the biggest stars on the biggest stage. And New York, New Jersey is the capital of the world, right? It's the media capital, the entertainment capital, and the economic capital of the world," says Alex Lasry, the chief exceutive of the Fifa World Cup 26 NYNJ Host Committee.Lasry says it is not just about the 80,000 plus people at the stadium, which is one of the largest in the country, but the tens of thousands who will be at watch parties across the region at iconic locations such at Rockefeller Center and Central Park in Manhattan."It's going to be a massive celebration and one that is worthy of, I think, the capstone for America's first World Cup in 30 years," he says.Lasry says his team is well equipped to handle big events and to move heads of state and celebrities as needed. He adds that 97% of fans have been scanned in before the start of play, and that his team have managed to get all fans off site within two and a half hours of each match finishing."It may not be the most romantic football choice, but as a global business decision, it makes a lot of sense," says Kuba Kowalski, editor in chief of football architecture website StadiumDB.com.Kowalshi says MetLife Stadium is a safe choice for Fifa because its location ensures the final can be played at a time that works for both Europe and the Americas - as well as being situated in a huge premium market for sponsors, broadcasters and hospitality. However, he wonders if early concerns about the pitch will be an issue during the final.It was noticeable at MetLife that during hydration breaks for players, the sprinkler systems immediately kicked on to saturate the newly installed natural grass, which replaced the normal artificial turf.Both France and Brazil's teams voiced concerns about the feel of the grass.After Brazil's 1-1 group-stage draw with Morocco om 13 June, forward Vinicius Jr said the field was very dry, which made the game sluggish and affected players' rhythm."That makes things difficult because we want to play," he said. "We want to move the ball from one side to the other and this disrupts our game. But we have to adapt because I believe it will be like this all tournament."After beating Senegal on 16 June, France also questioned the surface, with coach Didier Deschamps calling it "special" - and not in a good way."I think it's probably concrete underneath," he said. "It's very short fibres."Midfielder Adrien Rabiot also said the surface felt more like artificial turf in being hard and rigid.With rain in the forecast the day before and after the final, there is also the reality that MetLife Stadium is exposed to the elements.Some fans the BBC spoke to accept that, but others felt the unpredictability wasn't worth the risk."Let's also not forget if storms roll in, then the match will inevitably get delayed," says Iain Bagwell, originally from Twickenham, who has been to the stadiums in Dallas and Atlanta.He believes Atlanta would have been an ideal location for the final, citing the fact that it is covered, is in the centre of the city, has great transportation links and is 20 minutes from the world's busiest airport.Atlanta is in the same time zone at New York City, and the concession pricing is very inexpensive for fans, he said. Fans can get a hot dog for $2 or chicken and fries for $6.He acknowledges, though, that Atlanta does not have New York's global reputation or as many seats as MetLife Stadium.For all the stadium's faults, sports columnist Politi says it can do the World Cup final justice."When it is full and when people are engaged and when the game is good, it really is a noisy place, it can rock," he says.When the World Cup finishes, the football continues on BBC SportHow to watch the World Cup on the BBC and ITV
BBC SportSat, 18 Jul 2026
Source: BBC Sport
